Appeal No. 96-2623
Application No. 08/240,095
deficiencies of each reference on an individual basis, we note
that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co.
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In light of the foregoing, we believe that the teachings of
the applied prior art are sufficient to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to claim 1.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the appellants argue that
the recited self-alignment means is not disclosed in Stiff or
Johnston. The appellants point out that as particularly defined
in the specification at page 9, lines 16-19, the fit of the
unthreaded end of the screw 38 in the bottom of the lower platen
14 allows for a slight amount of play whereby the lower platen
virtually floats on the lower support arm 35. The appellants
contrast this to "Stiff's spring support for the head that allows
only adjustment along the axis of the spring in resistance to the
lowering of the upper platen due to the cams rotated by the
lever" (brief, p. 9).
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007